On his site http://www.high-endaudio.com/RECENT.html#June, Arthur Salvatore gives a "scientific" explanation of the differences between solid-state and tube amplification. I have read the passage several times, and I'm still looking for his explanation.

Here is an abridged version. He is discussing a Titan amplifier (emphasis mine):

____________________________________________________________ _____

"I can state this with near certainty, because even though I've never heard the Titan, it is a fact that no transistor amplifier, using current technology, and with that much power (and thus with unavoidable "size" and ultra-complexity), can equal any good tube amplifier in their unique sonic strengths, and especially the finest single-ended-triode (SET) models (with their highly contrasting ultra-short signal paths and their ultra-simple circuitry). There's a scientific reason for this.


The laws of physics, on a micro-level, have always precluded this "bridging the gap" from happening, and ignoring those laws, along with hoping and wishing, and/or spending huge amounts of money, won't change that unfortunate reality. If this weren't so, tube amplifiers for the home would have disappeared 40 years ago. Instead, despite their greater cost and impracticality, tube amps are still popular with the most serious audiophiles and/or music lovers , and this will continue until there is a true technological breakthrough in transistors or humans experience an evolutionary and collective hearing loss (of ultra-soft sounds)."

____________________________________________________________ ____

Can anyone help me (or him) with the science? He never discusses the "scientific reason". What is the theory at work? (i.e. theory as an analytical framework to explain empirical observations)

Or this just more audiophile b.s.?

Ultra short signal path. Yeah, those electrons hate going round and round.

Um, haven't you answered your own question? There is no science there, as you rightly note.

Tube and SS amps have different distortion profiles—and tubes tend to have a lot more distortion, period. Some tube amps are clean/powerful enough that they are audibly indistinguishable from (similarly powered) SS amps. Others are not. That's the difference.

Ok, lets first take a look into tubes and transistors:
1.) Tubes work mostly in a vacuum (though some special tubes do not) and use the principle of electron attraction from the overcharged cathode to the receptor anode by thermionic emission. This allows them to act as a diode and with some other alteration a switch. The switch works on the principle of electrons being able to flow through a vacuum. With a grid added to the tube, one can add voltage to the grid to control the flow of electrons between the two electrodes (in its most basic design).
2.) Solid State Transistors use two types of silicon derived from doping of different gases. P and N type silicon, in the most common designs. One type sits between the other, when a small voltage is applied, because of the special doping, it then allows electricity to flow through it, any other time it does not. Thus it acts as a switch.

Techinically speaking, both switch at extremely fast rates, enough to not be noticable for things like audio. Harmonic distortions are created in both, which is where the main difference lays.
Although i have no source on this, i've heard tubes produce even integer harmonics, where solid state amps produce odd integer. If this is true, this it follows that the harmonic distortion from a tube amp will sound better than that of a solid state amp. This is because square waves (as opposed to most audio which is sinusoidal) are produced by odd integer harmonics, thus solid state amps are bound to produce square wave sounding distortion.
However, all this means is that a cheaply made tube amp probably will sound better than a cheaply made solid state amp... but these days even the low end is very well made, so i doubt there will be much of a difference.

Well, if you read the website, the guy is a tube lover. It's his thing. Like some people are chubby chasers, some like Mustangs, etc.

Although i have no source on this, i've heard tubes produce even integer harmonics, where solid state amps produce odd integer.
I've got no immediately linkable source for this, but my understanding is that tube amps often have more of both even and odd order HD. I' can't recall ever seeing measurements of a modern SS amp that shows audible levels of odd-order HD.

Well, if you read the website, the guy is a tube lover. It's his thing. Like some people are chubby chasers, some like Mustangs, etc.

Chubby chasers?
That label might apply to tube heads!

I've got no immediately linkable source for this, but my understanding is that tube amps often have more of both even and odd order HD. I' can't recall ever seeing measurements of a modern SS amp that shows audible levels of odd-order HD.
Yeah, as i said, i have no source on that info, its only what i've heard. But, if i have some free time tonight (doubtful though) i'll hookup my scope to my sub amp (its cheap and produces quite a bit of harmonics) and see.

Ah, more trite "tubes produce these and transistors produce those" stuff.

I've used transistors to produce even-order and odd-order harmonics alike. And a couple times I've used tubes to do it.

Does Arthur Salvatore actually have a scientific reason, or does he just allude to there being one?

Techinically speaking, both switch at extremely fast rates, enough to not be noticable for things like audio.

Tubes and transistors are biased to operate in a linear fashion when used as amplifiers.

Does Arthur Salvatore actually have a scientific reason, or does he just allude to there being one?

When I started this thread, I presumed he either had no scientific reason, or he assumes we would all nod our heads in agreement.

He states that the laws of physics are operating on a micro level :confused:

As far as I know, all his communication is one-way only. He does not participate in online forums, which neatly avoids the problem of being confronted with responses to his pronouncements on all things audio.

He's also got a crappy website design.

In addition to the likelihood of higher distortion (if potentially but not necessarily more pleasant distortion) tube amps are more likely, as I understand it, to have a high output impedance, so their frequency response will vary to a greater extent than any normal transistor amp depending on impedance profile of the speaker they are connected to. That's surely an overbroad statement, but generally true. Se even operated so that their distortion is below audible levels, typical tube amps may sound different from typical transistor amps. Most obviously by rolling off in the bass.

This from a guy who LIKES tubes in stereo gear (and insists on them in guitar amps). FWIW, while I like 'em, I own no tube home audio devices.

BTW I was looking at info on a semi new design by one of the botique guitar makers, and whoever was talking suggested that 6L6 tubes' distortion has more even-order harmonics than EL-34 tubes. I've seen similar statements before but have no idea if they are true. And of course, in guitar land, we are intentionally pushing our power tubes into distortion because it sounds good for certain applications,so how the device distorts is perhaps more important, since we know we will be pushing it into audible distortion. It is hard, in my estimation, to really know to what extent the overall sound of a device is dependent on the specific output tube versus other areas of the design. Generally 6L6 amps sound different to me than EL34 amps, but I've heard 2 EL 34 amps that sound just as different from each other. There are some boutique-y designs that let you roll in those different output tubes, but the ones I've gotten to fool with sound like cr@p to me. I don't care if it sounds a different kind of bad if I change the tubes, and never had the patience to play around with them much.

tube amps are more likely, as I understand it, to have a high output impedance,

Hence the use of impedance matching transformers on the outputs.

Oh man, a lot of Torontonian audiophiles (like me) have Arthur Salvatore stories. Classic
crazed/passionate audiophile he is.

I love tube amps (some of them at least). I understand their yummy distortion can come from various places, but a lot of people point their finger at the output transformers.

I recently bought a classic EICO HF-81 tube integrated amp (circa 50s/60s). A sought after gem for tube amp aficionados. It sounds gorgeous in that classic tube-amp way.
Some say it's a combination of the design and especially the output transformers uniquely made by EICO for that period.

I don't know what it is, but it's damn fun to put in the system. Stereophile did a rave about this amp a few years ago which, of course, means you have to pay more for one now if you find it vs before the Stereophile review.

I actually read the Stereophile review after hearing the Eico. I didn't even want to look at the review's "Measurements" section for that amp. It was sure to be bad news :) And I didn't want to start hearing those measurements, if'n ya know what I mean. As it is I can just enjoy using the amp for what it does for my listening experience...whatever the reasons.

I highly recommend reading David Manley's book on tubes. (VTL).

Circuit implementation has more to do with it than the actual component. You can make a good or bad amp with either. You can make almost any "overly sweet" tub amp sound much like a bi-polar with only the addition of small grid isolation resistors. I did this in an old Knight 30W amp. You can make a MOSFET amp generate 20% second order harmonics, just like a tube. Did that too to a Sanyo Plus.

It is all about the transfer function. Like Hafler showed, "Is the output exactly the same as the input, just bigger?"

Further argue, Carver built the best tube amp he could as a benchmark to show his best solid state amp sounded just the same. It did, but the tube lovers bought the tube amp anyway. He made money, what the heck.

If the unit does anything other than amplify, it is not just an amp, it is a distortion generator. Some may like it, some may not. Personal preference is just that, personal.
"Better" is preference. Accuracy is objective and can be measured. The physics are not a mystery, they are well understood.

The thing is that I like about whatever tube amps are doing (distortion-wise) is they act as a sort of "fix" for the overly electronic, mechanical sound I get in most systems and from a preponderance of recordings. There are so many little issues in the chain of recording, starting with microphone colorations on down the line to the play back system (how well distortion is controlled at the speaker end, how well integrated the crossover/drivers/overall sound is etc) that add up to an unnatural "squeezed" electronic/mechanical presentation of voices and instruments. Sibilance in voices is a particular giveaway - it often as a too-sharp, electronic "detached from the person" quality compared to real life. What also tends to be missing - almost always - from reproduced sound is the organic quality, particularly the sense of softness of real life instruments. Just today I was listening to a guy playing a nylon-string guitar and occasionally singing (while I was buying an acoustic guitar). I closed my eyes and noted, as I always do, the fatness of the sound, the "fleshy" quality of his fingers on the strings, the organic quality of his voice. That "woody" sound of the guitar.

In comparison, most reproductions of a singers and instruments sound squeezed and harder than life. As if made out of different materials than they really are.

Somehow certain tube amps fill out and perhaps "smudge" the sound, sometimes soften it a bit too, not overtly to make the sound bad or like mud, but just enough and just in the right direction to make voices and instruments - all the frequencies creating them - sound more coherent and organic. Sibilance tends to sit into the mouth of the singer more believably. And the slightly softer, fuller sound at least mimics some of that organic quality I hear in real life. Which is why I find I can sit in front of my system when certain tube amps are in the chain (in my case, tube amps and tube pre-amps) much more engrossed and at ease than when powered by solid state amplification.

But as some here have pointed out, if you know what you are doing it's apparently possible to get a tube amp sounding like a solid state amp, and visa versa.

But that is personal preference. When it comes to the sonic differences between tube and solid state (here talking about those designs that DO sound different) other people find that solid state edges closer to the things they value - what they hear as neutrality, or more realistic transients, tighter bass or what have you. All the distortions that accrue in recording and sound reproduction means the "perfect sound reproduction" is rarely encountered (if it exists). So we tend to concentrate on the things that we, as individuals, find most important to our enjoyment of the sound and the hobby.

While it may be possible to have a solid state amp tweaked to sound like a tube amp, I prefer to have a "real" tube amp because there is also some aesthetic pleasure added
knowing it is "real" tubes doing the work, as well as the warm fuzzies I get from the visual design of some tube amps, seeing the tubes "glow" etc.

The thing is that I like about whatever tube amps are doing (distortion-wise) is they act as a sort of "fix" for the overly electronic, mechanical sound I get in most systems and from a preponderance of recordings. There are so many little issues in the chain of recording, starting with microphone colorations on down the line to the play back system (how well distortion is controlled at the speaker end, how well integrated the crossover/drivers/overall sound is etc) that add up to an unnatural "squeezed" electronic/mechanical presentation of voices and instruments. Sibilance in voices is a particular giveaway - it often as a too-sharp, electronic "detached from the person" quality compared to real life. What also tends to be missing - almost always - from reproduced sound is the organic quality, particularly the sense of softness of real life instruments. Just today I was listening to a guy playing a nylon-string guitar and occasionally singing (while I was buying an acoustic guitar). I closed my eyes and noted, as I always do, the fatness of the sound, the "fleshy" quality of his fingers on the strings, the organic quality of his voice. That "woody" sound of the guitar.

In comparison, most reproductions of a singers and instruments sound squeezed and harder than life. As if made out of different materials than they really are.

Somehow certain tube amps fill out and perhaps "smudge" the sound, sometimes soften it a bit too, not overtly to make the sound bad or like mud, but just enough and just in the right direction to make voices and instruments - all the frequencies creating them - sound more coherent and organic. Sibilance tends to sit into the mouth of the singer more believably. And the slightly softer, fuller sound at least mimics some of that organic quality I hear in real life. Which is why I find I can sit in front of my system when certain tube amps are in the chain (in my case, tube amps and tube pre-amps) much more engrossed and at ease than when powered by solid state amplification.

But as some here have pointed out, if you know what you are doing it's apparently possible to get a tube amp sounding like a solid state amp, and visa versa.

But that is personal preference. When it comes to the sonic differences between tube and solid state (here talking about those designs that DO sound different) other people find that solid state edges closer to the things they value - what they hear as neutrality, or more realistic transients, tighter bass or what have you. All the distortions that accrue in recording and sound reproduction means the "perfect sound reproduction" is rarely encountered (if it exists). So we tend to concentrate on the things that we, as individuals, find most important to our enjoyment of the sound and the hobby.

While it may be possible to have a solid state amp tweaked to sound like a tube amp, I prefer to have a "real" tube amp because there is also some aesthetic pleasure added
knowing it is "real" tubes doing the work, as well as the warm fuzzies I get from the visual design of some tube amps, seeing the tubes "glow" etc.

Exactly, Distortion. I did not say it was bad, just that it is distortion. Mmmmm, Lynn, Grace, Cary, Quads. Like pouring melted butter all over the music.

Actual science:
Tubes can produce higher voltage gain in one stage, reducing the number of amp stages. Advantage for lower phase or TIM distortion. Poor in current gain though.
Tubes produce predominately even order harmonic distortion. This is less objectionable to the brain than odd order.
FET's behave a lot like tubes and you can use less feedback than a bi-polar to reduce odd order harmonics and still get a "pleasing" sound.
Bi-polar transistors produce predominately odd order distortion requiring higher amounts of negative feedback. Sufficient bandwidth will resolve this limitation.
Tubes kind of just slide through it without being too upset when over driven. Bipolars get ugly when they clip. Fet's just blow up. Much more important when we all had 15W amps.

Where tubes are best used is to solve the original problem. As INSTRUMENTS in the original recordings. To give the artist the sound they want. Then don't mess it up with bad circuit design later. Let's hear it for upside-down Fenders and AKG mics!

Can anyone help me (or him) with the science?


Sure. Identical transfer functions sound identical. Differences less than thresholds of perception sound identical. That means amplitude response, distortion, and noise.

A single ended triode not driven to clipping doesn't sound any different from a solid state amplifier with the same transfer function, which might be approximated by a resistor in series with the output (this means the speaker has more output where the impedance goes up, like a teenager's graphic equalizer in the classic smiley-face configuration) and perhaps a band-pass filter.

It's better because:
1) You can visualize the electrons flowing from cathode to plate with charges on the grids repelling them. Just look at tube X-rays.

2) Tubes survive the EMP pulse from nuclear detonation.

3) Tubes aren't static sensitive

4) Like real hobbies tubes can kill you with high voltages. It left a mark and got my attention when I put my hand across the grounded chasis on my bench supply and terminal attached to the 450V B+ rectifier.

and MOST important.

5) Tubes have pretty glows. Especially with tube rectification where you can get more than just heater orange and blue from Cherenkov radiation.

Note mesmerizing glow from mercury vapor rectifiers. Pretty!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=147389&stc=1&d=1247096768

Actually, the output transoformer does not eliminate the high output impedance of tube amps. If I had to guess, it adds to it. Just for grins, I went over to the Stereophile page and opened the review of the VTL MB-450, a $13.5K per pair high power monoblock design. (second review under tube power amps - - the first is a class A low power tube amp that has even higher output impedance and a FR swing of something like plus or minus 2.5 dB into simulated speaker load, depending on the transformer tap). Output impedence of the VTL is sufficiently high that into S-phile's dummy speaker load the amp's frequency response fluctuated by "an audible [plus or minus] 1.2 dB." That's the nature of tube amps in general. If you look at the measurements,you'll see the amp is admirably flat into a resistive load well past 20kHz. THD is higher than it might be because of the low NFB design, which is okay with me as long as you know what the tradeoffs are.

Most solid state amps whose reviews I've looked at are more like plus or minus 0.2 dB into the simulated speaker load, because of their much lower output impedances. While a swing that approaxhes 0.5 dB or so over broad regions may be detectable, barely, under some circumstances, there is little question AFAIK that tube amps, much as we may love them, are likely to be less flat into real world speakers than transistors.

Actually, the output transoformer does not eliminate the high output impedance of tube amps.

No transformer can alter the characteristics of a tube. The transformer is an impedance transformer, it is used to transform the high output impedance of the tube to a low impedance, enabling maximum power transfer to the low impedance load.

Maybe. Like I said, I was speculating. I know that the resistance of a speaker cable changes the effective output impedance (or, if you prefer damping factor) in the amp-to speaker connection. Outside the amp, it doesn't change the amp proper, but it does change the system as a whole. Just seemed to me that the output transformer is like coiling a very long speaker cable inside the amp instead of outside it - - and that the resulting added resistance would have the same effect in front of the output terminals as it would have had after them. But again that's just me thinking out loud.

Tubes don't inherently produce even-order harmonics. You can make a transistor or vacuum tube circuit produce even-order harmonics. You can also make one produce odd-order. You can make one produce both. For amplification, and not effects, I prefer a circuit that produces as close to neither as possible, even when I listen to electronic-sounding recordings (like Tangerine Dream) or mechanical-sounding ones (like Andre Watts).

I highly recommend reading David Manley's book on tubes. (VTL). Morgan Jones' two books are also must reads. DM abuses valve specs a little too hard for my tastes.

Circuit implementation has more to do with it than the actual component. You can make a good or bad amp with either.Agree. The expression 'tube sound' makes me cringe.

If the unit does anything other than amplify, it is not just an amp, it is a distortion generator. Some may like it, some may not. Personal preference is just that, personal.
"Better" is preference. Accuracy is objective and can be measured. The physics are not a mystery, they are well understood.Agreed, but not something many audiophiles understand.

Hence the use of impedance matching transformers on the outputs.Still doesn't give a near zero output Z. Best tube amp I ever measured in this regard was a bit under an ohm in the midband and as expected worsened at both ends. My Fisher receiver, even with a fair whack of gNFB is still about 2R and the zero gNFB amps I designed varied between 2 and 4R.

No transformer can alter the characteristics of a tube. The transformer is an impedance transformer, it is used to transform the high output impedance of the tube to a low impedance, enabling maximum power transfer to the low impedance load.No, but the two work together to produce a composite transfer function. The transformer is not perfect and primary and leakage inductance as well as shunt capacitances will affect how i works at a given frequency in a real application.

Sure. Identical transfer functions sound identical. Differences less than thresholds of perception sound identical. That means amplitude response, distortion, and noise.True and the Carver Challenge showed it to be so, but many still won't accept it's true. Leaves too little room for lots of grandiose descriptions and playing pseudo reviewer.

It's better because:

and MOST important.

5) Tubes have pretty glows. Especially with tube rectification where you can get more than just heater orange and blue from Cherenkov radiation.

Note mesmerizing glow from mercury vapor rectifiers. Pretty!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=147389&stc=1&d=1247096768I like thoriated tungsten filaments better. Four of these in stero PP, and I could read the paper with them. I'd be a bit concerned if I could do that with a SS amp.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=147427&d=1247159029

Ultra short signal path. Yeah, those electrons hate going round and round.Yeah, it made the 47Labs Gaincard sound so much better than a typical NatSemi LM series poweramp chip. /sarcasm

Still doesn't give a near zero output Z.

Nothing on this planet does. No-one ever suggested an zero Ohm output impedance either, in fact, I mentioned impedance matching, which would imply an 8 Ohm output impedance.

Just seemed to me that the output transformer is like coiling a very long speaker cable inside the amp instead of outside it

You're not considering transformer theory. If you view it as just a coil of wire, you'd see that it's a 'direct short' across the amplifier output.

Isn't the primary more like a resistor of X ohms across the amplifier output? But more to my point, doesn't the current induced in the secondary have to flow through the winding, so that it "sees" whatever resistance that winding presents?

Didn't come here to argue about something I don't necessarily think matters. My primary point was that the higher output impedance of typical tube amps creates greater frequency response anomalies than the lower output impedance of typical transistor amps when pushing real-world speakers with significant impedance variation, an issue that I just don't think is controversial. Tube amps are tested from their output terminals, post-transformer, and the transformers clearly have not eliminated the output impedance issue . . .

Nothing on this planet does. A typical SS amp is as near as, usually <100milliohms at the terminals.

No-one ever suggested an zero Ohm output impedance either, in fact, I mentioned impedance matching, which would imply an 8 Ohm output impedance.
Why would you want an 8R output impedance except for a very specific amp/speaker combo? It still should be as low as possible for an amplifier that is expected to drive a variety of speakers.

Isn't the primary more like a resistor of X ohms across the amplifier output? But more to my point, doesn't the current induced in the secondary have to flow through the winding, so that it "sees" whatever resistance that winding presents?Not quite but close enough for RnR.

Put an 8R load on the secondary of a 20:1 turns ratio output transformer and the tube will see the square of the ratio x load, ie 20 x20 x8 =3200R in this case.If the tube had a plate resistance of 1000R, the the speaker would see an output Z of the inverse of the square, ie 1000/(20x20) or 2.5R.

Assuming no negative FB this added to the resistance of the secondary winding would be the output Z of the amplifier, so maybe 2.7 -3.2R.
I've simplified of course, not including primary R, primarly L etc.

Didn't come here to argue about something I don't necessarily think matters. My primary point was that the higher output impedance of typical tube amps creates greater frequency response anomalies than the lower output impedance of typical transistor amps when pushing real-world speakers with significant impedance variation, an issue that I just don't think is controversial. Tube amps are tested from their output terminals, post-transformer, and the transformers clearly have not eliminated the output impedance issue . . .You are correct. The Stereopile measurements clearly show this on the tube amps under test.

A typical SS amp is as near as, usually <100milliohms at the terminals.

You claimed zero output impedance...nothing has a zero output impedance.

Why would you want an 8R output impedance except for a very specific amp/speaker combo?

Why would you want a very high impedance output? The post I was responding to suggests this.

Isn't the primary more like a resistor of X ohms across the amplifier output?

No, it's not...hence my comment about reactance.

If my post seemed to indicate I thought a high output impedance was good, I apologize for trhe confusion. Thought I was clear, but . . .

My resistor comment was intentionally limited, in part because we're getting into stuff I don't know well, which I am certain I signalled from my first comment. But neither the transformer's primary nor the transformer as a whole is a dead short across the output any more than an 8 ohm speaker attached to the output terminals is a dead short. That was my point.

Done now.

If my post seemed to indicate I thought a high output impedance was good, I apologize for trhe confusion. Thought I was clear, but . . .
My resistor comment was intentionally limited, in part because we're getting into stuff I don't know well, which I am certain I signalled from my first comment. But neither the transformer's primary nor the transformer as a whole is a dead short across the output any more than an 8 ohm speaker attached to the output terminals is a dead short. That was my point.
Done now.

You claimed zero output impedance...nothing has a zero output impedance.
Why would you want a very high impedance output? The post I was responding to suggests this.
No, it's not...hence my comment about reactance.

In fact it is possible to design an amplifier with negative output impedance! A feedback amplifier can be constructed so that the output voltage gain increases with increasing output current. I don,t know if many amps were constructed this way, but Audio Amateur magazine did publish a circuit some decades ago.

Um, haven't you answered your own question? There is no science there, as you rightly note.

Tube and SS amps have different distortion profiles—and tubes tend to have a lot more distortion, period. Some tube amps are clean/powerful enough that they are audibly indistinguishable from (similarly powered) SS amps. Others are not. That's the difference.

Yes, indeed, but those tube amps are certainly not the short path triodes that the posted site seems to worship:eek:
But, rather well designed complex, long path tubes of perhaps the pentode designs and much lower output impedance.

Nothing on this planet does. No-one ever suggested an zero Ohm output impedance either, in fact, I mentioned impedance matching, which would imply an 8 Ohm output impedance.
....

Yes, but I would think that would certainly cause the Fr of that amp to be the same as the speaker's FR; or, I could be wrong.:eek:

In fact it is possible to design an amplifier with negative output impedance! A feedback amplifier can be constructed so that the output voltage gain increases with increasing output current. I don,t know if many amps were constructed this way, but Audio Amateur magazine did publish a circuit some decades ago.

Jack Sondermeyer at Peavey designed one some years ago. I don't think it made it into production with that feature, though. I think it was deemed too difficult to explain to musicians.

Anyone testing their output terminals on their amps with multimeters?

You claimed zero output impedance...nothing has a zero output impedance.I claimed near zero and for most SS amps this is the case. Get it right, eh?

Still doesn't give a near zero output Z. Best tube amp I ever measured in this regard was a bit under an ohm in the midband and as expected worsened at both ends. My Fisher receiver, even with a fair whack of gNFB is still about 2R and the zero gNFB amps I designed varied between 2 and 4R.

Jack Sondermeyer at Peavey designed one some years ago. I don't think it made it into production with that feature, though. I think it was deemed too difficult to explain to musicians.

I presume that the goal would be to zero out the effective resistance of the speaker cables.

If the goal were to have zero impedance drive for the speakers, it seems like a 4-wire system with remote sensing would be the best solution. Of course, this would up the complexity of hook-ups quite a bit, and would be likely to be misused a lot.

I know of a number of speaker designers who have addressed the problem from the speaker end, by designing the speaker to be used with a speaker cable whose series impedance was non-zero, but included in the design.

Commercial examples of this include Ken Kantor's the NHT Pro A10 and A20. They used 20' 20 gauge XLR cables for speaker cables. They had signficiant resistance, but the cable was part of the system design.

I know of some custom speaker designs where the resistance of > 100 foot speaker cables was added to the voice coil resistance in the T/S calculations, thus effectively compensating for the cable resistance.

Anyone testing their output terminals on their amps with multimeters?

Not for a long time.

However, I've more recently done measurements of amplifier source impedance with a RTA, a sensing network, and another amplfiier.

An SS amp with an series output choke (very common) has a non-trivial source impedance at 10-20 KHz and up.

Yes, but I would think that would certainly cause the Fr of that amp to be the same as the speaker's FR; or, I could be wrong.:eek:

What actually happens with high source impedance amps is that the voltage applied to the speaker is strongly influenced by its impedance.

Speaker designers usually presume a low impedance source, but in another post I made today I discuss some reasonable exceptions.

The effect of a power amp with a high source impedance is like adding an equalizer to the system. The settings of this ad-hoc equalizer are best thought of as being random, and they cannot be controlled by the user. In short, its a mess! This is also the most audible consequence of most SET amplifiers.

The thing is that I like about whatever tube amps are doing (distortion-wise) is they act as a sort of "fix" for the overly electronic, mechanical sound I get in most systems and from a preponderance of recordings.


The fix has to be mostly in your mind, because it doesn't happen that way in the real physical world.

If I said that all tubed amps were the same, and all speakers and rooms were the same you'd rightfully question my claims. But, this is what you are in effect saying above because you're sayng that a generic change, namely adding any tubed amp, fixes all problems. In fact it is unlikely that you are fixing any problem.

In order to fix something you have to do something specific that addresses the very specific situation at hand. If your car's engine has bad spark plugs, changing the oil may make you feel good, but it won't help the spark plugs.

Just throwing in some tubed electronics to fix the sound of an audio system is like changing the oil when the problem is the spark plugs.

I've thought about playing with some kind of tube buffer in the processor loop of my preamp.

Something like
http://www.pacificvalve.us/YaqinTB.html

Then I could add the "tube sound" whenever I wanted. . .

Get it right, eh?

LOL...irony ++

I've thought about playing with some kind of tube buffer in the processor loop of my preamp.

Something like
http://www.pacificvalve.us/YaqinTB.html

Then I could add the "tube sound" whenever I wanted. . .

"Tube sound" whatever that is...

Quote form their web site:

"guaranteed to add the magic of tubes
to any system without adding any significant noise or distortion."

*any* component that reliably changes the sound of an audio system *must* do so by changing noise and/or distortion. In short, they seem to be claiming that for the princely sum of $189.95, their product will do *nothing*.

Oh man, a lot of Torontonian audiophiles (like me) have Arthur Salvatore stories. Classic crazed/passionate audiophile he is.

His rants against Michael Fremer and the rest of the high-end reviewing community are entertaining though

The thing is that I like about whatever tube amps are doing (distortion-wise) is they act as a sort of "fix" for the overly electronic, mechanical sound I get in most systems and from a preponderance of recordings. There are so many little issues in the chain of recording, starting with microphone colorations on down the line to the play back system (how well distortion is controlled at the speaker end, how well integrated the crossover/drivers/overall sound is etc) that add up to an unnatural "squeezed" electronic/mechanical presentation of voices and instruments. Sibilance in voices is a particular giveaway - it often as a too-sharp, electronic "detached from the person" quality compared to real life. What also tends to be missing - almost always - from reproduced sound is the organic quality, particularly the sense of softness of real life instruments. Just today I was listening to a guy playing a nylon-string guitar and occasionally singing (while I was buying an acoustic guitar). I closed my eyes and noted, as I always do, the fatness of the sound, the "fleshy" quality of his fingers on the strings, the organic quality of his voice. That "woody" sound of the guitar.

But doesn't it seem a bit odd to you that all these disparate colorations introduced by different stages and means in the rec/play signal chain, are uniformly 'fixed' by overlaying them with tube distortion near the end of the chain? Just luck, or is the tube distortion just so much greater that it dominates the rest?

The fix has to be mostly in your mind, because it doesn't happen that way in the real physical world.

If I said that all tubed amps were the same, and all speakers and rooms were the same you'd rightfully question my claims. But, this is what you are in effect saying above because you're sayng that a generic change, namely adding any tubed amp, fixes all problems.

Note that I did not state tube amps fix "all problems." Recording quality varies, of course, so the "problems" I mentioned will vary in degree among recordings. Some recordings will sound much more natural than others whether using tube or solid state amplification.

But most people will acknowledge that most (if not all, but at least most) reproduced sound, is distinguishable from "real sounds" (e.g. real voices, real acoustic instruments), via the accumulation of colorations, and limitations, in the recording/playback chain.

Right?

I find that, even though the colorations and inaccuracies may accumulate in different ways and to different degrees, the OVERALL TENDENCY is for reproduced sound to lack the richness of timbre, fullness, softness and organic quality that I find in "real" sounds. These are goals, benchmarks I get from real life sounds, that reproduced sound tends to miss...some getting closer, others further, but most if not all being distinguishable from real sounds by not reproducing those qualities.

As a further note, I've worked in film sound effects for many years so I routinely record real sounds with various levels of recording equipment, and play back those sounds on everything from consumer level systems to the best mixing studios in town. So I'm constantly hearing the difference between the real sound vs how the recording I made/played back of that sound. As well I've done a lot of testing of real life sounds that I know (voices of family, instruments I own) compared directly to the same sounds recorded on professional equipment, played back on various sound systems. For instance, having a recording of my wife's voice speaking, having her sit between speakers saying the same words as her recorded voice played back through the system, comparing the types of differences I'm hearing between the live and reproduced.

And my general note from all this experience remains the same: the live sounds of voices and most acoustic instruments inevitably have a roundness, softness, richness, and lack of "hardness," lack of "electronic signature" that the reproduced sound doesn't fully portray.

No one needs to accept this from my say-so. I'm simply giving the experience on which I've based my perceptions.

While the level of these deficiencies fluctuate between recordings, they remain over the preponderance of recordings/reproduced sound as SPECIFIC, CONSISTENT deficiencies. (Like pointing out that while there is great variety in human running skill, that occur for many different reasons, we nonetheless all share the quality of "not being able to run as fast as the fastest Cheetah." Adding a car to the equation, while artificial and a "general fix," at least allows us to move as fast as the Cheetah).

So even a broad spectrum of recording colorations still result in a set of SPECIFIC deficiencies that I find stick out, benchmarks that distinguish reproduced sound from it's live counterpart.

I'm not as concerned about the often acknowledged problem of trying to reproduce the full dynamics of many real instruments in reproduced sounds. That's a deficiency that doesn't bother me a lot, or at least not as much as the lack of relaxed, organic quality in reproduced sound. I appreciate that more accurately reproducing real-life-level dynamics is a goal others pursue more strongly. So there are other "deficiencies" in live vs reproduced sound that I don't find tube amp colorations address, but they aren't the ones I tend to focus on, personally. Tube amps don't address all problems, but do address some of the ones important to me.

But the point is there is nothing inherently problematical about certain specific, mostly consistent deficiencies being addressed by a "general fix."
I find certain tube amps, the ones that add certain characteristics to the sound often identified with "classic tube amp sound" (not the ones that can be made to sound like solid state) move in the direction of this "general fix."
The sound tends to get softer, fuller, thicker, transients and sibilance less piercing and "detached" sounding than the same recordings played back through a typical solid state amp.


This certainly may make the reproduction chain less accurate to the source, insofar is it is not reproducing as strictly all the colorations in the source. But for my ears this DOES address the specific, but broadly present, deficiency I find in reproduced sound.

Other people will detect classic tube amp colorations as detouring from what they feel is realistic sound reproduction. But I think it's a case of personal preference and perception. Some people are compelled to listen to a system insofar as it has produces a better sense of dynamic "life." Timbrel accuracy, or "organic quality" may be further down their list of priorities, if on it at all. Whereas others are more drawn to listen to a system insofar as THEY PERCEIVE it to produce sounds with timbrel verity or an "organic" quality. (That's me).




In fact it is unlikely that you are fixing any problem.

Obviously I disagree, for the reasons I've stated. Certainly tube amps can't magically fix all recording problems. But for me they take some specific, but ever-present deficiencies I find in reproduced sound and move things in the direction
that I can more easily "believe."

There is a "relaxed" quality I experience when listening, say, to a live singer's voice, a saxophone, an acoustic guitar, that I don't experience from the preponderance of recording/playback of those same sounds. Comparing the presentation of a "classic" tube amp sound against the same recordings played via a solid state amp, I find the tube sound presentation more "relaxed," moving the overall sound in the direction of my experience of hearing real voices and instruments.

Cheers,

Tubes take the edge off Amy Winehouse's cranked up voice.

Tube sound for a SS amp is easy with this. http://www.rane.com/pdf/old/pi14dat.pdf

Note that I did not state tube amps fix "all problems." Recording quality varies, of course, so the "problems" I mentioned will vary in degree among recordings. Some recordings will sound much more natural than others whether using tube or solid state amplification.


I guess there's a failure to communicate here. You said and I quote:

"The thing is that I like about whatever tube amps are doing (distortion-wise) is they act as a sort of "fix" for the overly electronic, mechanical sound I get in most systems and from a preponderance of recordings."

That makes it sound like one need not be overly choosy about which recording you try to fix, and which tubed amplifier you try to fix it with. I note the use of the word "preponderance", which I think is Olde Englishe for something like: "most if not all".


But most people will acknowledge that most (if not all, but at least most) reproduced sound, is distinguishable from "real sounds" (e.g. real voices, real acoustic instruments), via the accumulation of colorations, and limitations, in the recording/playback chain.

Right?


The fallacy here is that "most people" know the right answer to any technical question you might er, purpound.

There is in fact a "guilty little secret" that is well known to most if not all of those of us who specialise in the related black and arcane arts of live sound and recording. This "guilty little secret is obviously not known to most audiopiles and it is clearly heretofore not known to you.

That will change forthwith!

Here is the "guilty little secret" that has been largely hidden away from audiophiles by the worldwide conspiracy of recordists and live sound technicans for all time:

The distinction between "real sound" and reproduced sound is generally set into the proverbial chiseled stone as if by the Hand of God, cast in cement, locked down for eternity, and the beauty of live sound is irretrievably lost by the time the audio signal reaches the output termainals of the microphone.

Now that I have told you this "guilty little secret" you would do well to duck under cover every time a black helicopter appears anyplace in the sky near where you are. ;-)

It can be determined by independent means that there are numerous sonically transparent components to fill *every* other slot in a well-designed record/playback chain, except for loudspeakers. This has been true since the advent of both good solid state electronics and digital recording and playback in the mid-1980s at the latest.

Therefore, there are not necessarily any "accumulation(s) of colorations, and limitations, in the recording/playback chain" except for those in loudspeakers and microphones. None. Nada.

IOW, while you may be seeking to somehow correct the acute violence that microphones and speakers do to reproduced sound by adding say, tubed electronics, you are destined by the immutable laws of physics, both known and unknown, to completely fail.

Just a little heads up to set your thoughts for the weekend before us!

But doesn't it seem a bit odd to you that all these disparate colorations introduced by different stages and means in the rec/play signal chain, are uniformly 'fixed' by overlaying them with tube distortion near the end of the chain? Just luck, or is the tube distortion just so much greater that it dominates the rest?

Indeed.

BTW my dear Krab, I believe you know that I suffer from mild patches of psoriasis on my scalp. I have been informed by any number of "Tube gods" that the itchy patches would go away forthwith, if I would only listen to music through tubed electronics for 3 hours every day. ;-)

Improbable?

No more improbable than what we see posted on this forum quite frequently.

Tubes take the edge off Amy Winehouse's cranked up voice.

This is actually backed up by science. If you steadily and rapidly feed virgin Telefunken 12AX7/7025/ECC83 tubes through a large meat grinder in order to crush them into fine dust, the sound of the crushing NOS tubes will mask the rough edge on her voice. ;-)

Well, I confess bafflement as to your strange tangent about "guilty secrets" and black helicopters. You seem to have mistaken me for an easy target
who is advocating some sort of "voodoo."

As to substantive issues:



Therefore, there are not necessarily any "accumulation(s) of colorations, and limitations, in the recording/playback chain" except for those in loudspeakers and microphones. None. Nada.

Er....have you ever been at a mixing or mastering session?

All sorts of processing is often applied to the recorded sound to change it from it's original input sound - FX, EQ changes, Compression, changes in bit/sample rate, De-Noise, De-"Essing," time stretching, the list of sound-altering choices that tend to add either gross or subtle colorations between the mic input and the speaker output is quite large.

Have you ever heard the differences that occur, the changes to the sound - that is COLORATIONS - that can occur at mastering stage?

Now, you add the qualification "not necessarily" an accumulation of colorations. Of course you can have "purist" type approaches to recordings in which they attempt to leave the signal as recorded by the mic as unsullied as possible, eschewing all the sound-changing tricks used in most recordings.
But it would be very odd to argue that these make up anything but a small percentage of overall recordings, the rest of which have some sort of mixing/mastering choices which to some degree depart sonically from the original "pure" recorded sound.

So forgive me if I'm not disposed to take "advice" from someone who'd so grossly ignore the colorations that occur in the mixing/mastering stages, as if for the most part alterations only happen at the microphone/speaker end.

And of course, there are the already mentioned colorations and limitations involved at the microphone/speaker end.

Yes...in most commercial recordings, the sound really does have significant coloration compared to both the "original" sound and the sound as captured by the microphone.

Also, it's odd you'd seem to quibble with my use of the word "preponderance" of reproduced sound as diverging from real sound, while simultaneously espousing a "secret" that ALL sound departs from live sound. Heck, that's even more than a "preponderance."

As to whether you agree with my characterization of the general differences between
live acoustic sounds and reproduced sounds...well...I'm not too concerned you agree with me. I'm just giving my take on it.




IOW, while you may be seeking to somehow correct the acute violence that microphones and speakers do to reproduced sound by adding say, tubed electronics, you are destined by the immutable laws of physics, both known and unknown, to completely fail.



Luckily you are wrong and I've found that, while a full redress of the difference between live and reproduced seems out of reach at the moment, I don't "completely fail." In aesthetic matters, subtle changes can have significant perceptual or emotional results. (I can't tell a good wine from a bad wine, so the differences won't mean much to me...but will make quite a difference to the perception and enjoyment of a connoisseur).

I don't ask the impossible. I don't claim any miracle cure that makes every recording sound real, uncolored or agreeable. All I'm saying is certain tube amplification moves the overall sonic presentation of my system subtly but agreeably in the direction I desire. And in the direction I perceive to sound slightly more "natural." And that has been enough to increase my enjoyment of the sound overall.

BTW as to this "secret":

"The distinction between "real sound" and reproduced sound is generally set into the proverbial chiseled stone as if by the Hand of God, cast in cement, locked down for eternity, and the beauty of live sound is irretrievably lost by the time the audio signal reaches the output termainals of the microphone."

There are number of people who would disagree with you. There have been quite a few "live vs reproduced" demonstrations over the years in which people have been reported not being able to tell the difference between the live and reproduced sound.

John Dunlavy, a well respected and hardened "objectivist" design-by-the-numbers Speaker Manufacturer, was well known for such demonstrations.

So perhaps the "Hand Of God" is not so irrevocable as you suggest.

On the other side, there have been live vs reproduced demos that, for the audience, high-lighted the difference between the "real" and reproduced sounds.

For me, my mind is open to the idea I could be fooled in a live vs reproduced sound scenario. Perhaps I would have been fooled under the conditions Dunlavy set up for his speakers. This is why I've been quite careful in my qualifications, using the word "generally" where applicable.


Even if under the right conditions reproduced sound could fool me it was the real thing, it's likely those type of conditions don't mirror the typical home set up. So some home-brew remedies (in my case certain tube amps) can help out, at least in my case, for getting desirable, more-natural-to-my-ears sound.

"Even if under the right conditions reproduced sound could fool me it was the real thing, it's likely those type of conditions don't mirror the typical home set up. So some home-brew remedies (in my case certain tube amps) can help out, at least in my case, for getting desirable, more-natural-to-my-ears sound."

I'm sorry, but the chances of added distortion even remotely fixing issues which then in turn makes it sound more accurate.... are so small its not even funny.
I can agree that tubes distort the sound in a way that may subjectively sounds more pleasing... but to make the argument it makes the sound more accurate, and so closer to a "live" performance, is not much of an argument.

Er....have you ever been at a mixing or mastering session?



Of course. I've mixed and mastered literally 100's, perhaps over 1,000 recordings or music and/or spoken word, often for hire but also often as a charitable service, which have received limited distribution due to the nature of the performances involved.


All sorts of processing is often applied to the recorded sound to change it from it's original input sound - FX, EQ changes, Compression, changes in bit/sample rate, De-Noise, De-"Essing," time stretching, the list of sound-altering choices that tend to add either gross or subtle colorations between the mic input and the speaker output is quite large.


Let me review what I said:

"It can be determined by independent means that there are numerous sonically transparent components to fill *every* other slot in a well-designed record/playback chain, except for loudspeakers. This has been true since the advent of both good solid state electronics and digital recording and playback in the mid-1980s at the latest."

"Therefore, there are not necessarily any "accumulation(s) of colorations, and limitations, in the recording/playback chain" except for those in loudspeakers and microphones. None. Nada."

Apparently you missed the phrase "not necessarily".

So yes, all sorts of processing is often applied to the recorded sound to change it from it's original input sound - FX, EQ changes, Compression, changes in bit/sample rate, De-Noise, De-"Essing," time stretching, etc. The list of sound-altering choices that tend to add either gross or subtle colorations between the mic input and the speaker output is quite large.

But, they are choices, not necessities.

None of them *have* to be applied - they are applied at the discression of the producers of the finished recording. They are used for artistic reasons, not science; preferences, not necessity. Arguably, some of them are justified by another major point I tried to make but you couldn't be bothered to quote or apparently understand:

"The distinction between "real sound" and reproduced sound is generally set into the proverbial chiseled stone as if by the Hand of God, cast in cement, locked down for eternity, and the beauty of live sound is irretrievably lost by the time the audio signal reaches the output terminals of the microphone."


Have you ever heard the differences that occur, the changes to the sound - that is COLORATIONS - that can occur at mastering stage?


There you go again - changing what I said to suit some apparently pathological need you must have to be hypercritical. :-(


Now, you add the qualification "not necessarily" an accumulation of colorations. Of course you can have "purist" type approaches to recordings in which they attempt to leave the signal as recorded by the mic as unsullied as possible, eschewing all the sound-changing tricks used in most recordings.


So what are you saying? After chewing my post up and spitting it out, you now admit that you *did* read what I said about all of the processing that you have listed out not being necessary?

If so, then where's the beef?


But it would be very odd to argue that these make up anything but a small percentage of overall recordings, the rest of which have some sort of mixing/mastering choices which to some degree depart sonically from the original "pure" recorded sound.


Those would be the preferences of the people making the recordings, which the producers would tell you is just them acting as proxies for the preferences of the music-buying public. Needless to say, most of us have heard some pretty egregious things done to recordings that used to sound pretty good until they were "re-mastered".

But, this processing was choice, not necessity.

The rule for recording is generally to record clean with minimal to zero pre-processing, and add the EFX (if any) during mixdown and mastering. This means that at some early point in the production, reasonably pristene master recordings existed, at least at some point in time. When these origional masters are obtained, one has the choice to mix them down as processed or unprocessed as one wishes.

Furthermore (and trying desperately to wrestle you from butt-kicking ,pde bacl to posting on topic), it seems highly improbable that it would be possible to undo all of this complex signal-processing handiwork by simply adding a random vacuum tube to the signal chain, as several seem to be claiming.



So forgive me if I'm not disposed to take "advice" from someone who'd so grossly ignore the colorations that occur in the mixing/mastering stages, as if for the most part alterations only happen at the microphone/speaker end.


For some reason known only to yourself, you are arguing with a straw man of your creation. I haven't ignored anything, I've simply pointed out that most processing is in some sense gratuitous, and done by people whose goal is rather obviously *not* utter realism.

Furthermore, in your hypercritical rush to judgement, you seem to have missed what I consider to be the most important point, which is that realism is already decidely lacking at the output terminals of the microphone.

So, its not any avoidable or unavoidable colorations in any subsequent processing that has lost the realism, the realism is already gone at what is arguably the first step in the process - the conversion of acoustical energy to an electrical signal by the microphone.


And of course, there are the already mentioned colorations and limitations involved at the microphone/speaker end.


This is really strange. After chastising me based on something I didn't say, you then concede one of my major points?

<shaking head>

You still didn't address the weird claim that I was rebutting: which is that such audible gratuitous signal processing that may have been done can be countermanded by simply putting a tubed amplifier into the signal chain.

BTW as to this "secret":

"The distinction between "real sound" and reproduced sound is generally set into the proverbial chiseled stone as if by the Hand of God, cast in cement, locked down for eternity, and the beauty of live sound is irretrievably lost by the time the audio signal reaches the output termainals of the microphone."

There are number of people who would disagree with you.


They get to be wrong. Or alternatively, you may be misunderstanding what they say.


There have been quite a few "live vs reproduced" demonstrations over the years in which people have been reported not being able to tell the difference between the live and reproduced sound.


Most well-educated critical listeners are not so easily confused.


John Dunlavy, a well respected and hardened "objectivist" design-by-the-numbers Speaker Manufacturer, was well known for such demonstrations.


I've actually spent quite a bit of time conversing with Mr. Dunlavy on this very topic, some years back. His claims and demonstrations were based on some very specific situations, which are not generalizable.

So perhaps the "Hand Of God" is not so irrevocable as you suggest.


On the other side, there have been live vs reproduced demos that, for the audience, high-lighted the difference between the "real" and reproduced sounds.


That's the more general case.


For me, my mind is open to the idea I could be fooled in a live vs reproduced sound scenario. Perhaps I would have been fooled under the conditions Dunlavy set up for his speakers. This is why I've been quite careful in my qualifications, using the word "generally" where applicable.


I've never been fooled.



Even if under the right conditions reproduced sound could fool me it was the real thing, it's likely those type of conditions don't mirror the typical home set up.


Agreed.



So some home-brew remedies (in my case certain tube amps) can help out, at least in my case, for getting desirable, more-natural-to-my-ears sound.

I think that you are talking about preference, faith and belief, not a generalizable result.

There is a "relaxed" quality I experience when listening, say, to a live singer's voice, a saxophone, an acoustic guitar, that I don't experience from the preponderance of recording/playback of those same sounds. Comparing the presentation of a "classic" tube amp sound against the same recordings played via a solid state amp, I find the tube sound presentation more "relaxed," moving the overall sound in the direction of my experience of hearing real voices and instruments.



I didn't read your reply to this comment arnyk, please do.

It appears we have to some degree been "talking past" one another. You seem to think you are dealing with some "woo-woo" loving audiophile who needs a lesson in sound reproduction and critical thinking. If you have possibly read other posts of mine I think you'd see more of a kindred spirit - as I do not tend to make wild technical claims for the components I like, I think much of high end audio is too filled with nonsense, and I have participated in and advocate blind/double-blind testing when possible.



For some reason known only to yourself, you are arguing with a straw man of your creation.

The strawman, or at least the implicit straw man, was coming from your end.
Mostly I was responding to what you wrote to me here:

It can be determined by independent means that there are numerous sonically transparent components to fill *every* other slot in a well-designed record/playback chain, except for loudspeakers. This has been true since the advent of both good solid state electronics and digital recording and playback in the mid-1980s at the latest.

Therefore, there are not necessarily any "accumulation(s) of colorations, and limitations, in the recording/playback chain" except for those in loudspeakers and microphones. None. Nada.

For some reason you felt you needed to explain that to me. The implication clearly is that you thought I was advocating the view that all components in the recording/playback chain added colorations. And that I needed to be redressed for holding such a viewpoint, and needed to be told there were sonically transparent parts of the chain.

I never made such a claim. I'm quite aware there are sonically transparent portions in the chain.

I wrote:

But most people will acknowledge that most (if not all, but at least most) reproduced sound, is distinguishable from "real sounds" (e.g. real voices, real acoustic instruments), via the accumulation of colorations, and limitations, in the recording/playback chain.

And:

I find that, even though the colorations and inaccuracies may accumulate in different ways and to different degrees,...

Nowhere have I advocated that all parts of the chain add coloration, or that there are not some parts that can be sonically transparent. I happen to agree there are sonically transparent parts of the chain - no doubt the same ones you think are sonically transparent. Nonetheless there ARE unavoidable portions of the chain that we all know tend to alter/color the sound...like microphones/speakers/speaker room interactions...and the preponderance of recordings will have gone through additional colorations via mixing choices, mastering choices, etc.

Those are the colorations I had in mind. I simply acknowledged that when playing most recordings, we are going to be encountering an accumulation of colorations (the ones that actually occur...not the ones that don't occur - e.g. "cable" sounds) from the microphone end, down the line through mixing/mastering colorations, to the playback end of speakers/speaker/room interactions.

It seems to me you assumed, perhaps because I liked the sound of my tube amps, that I was therefore an advocate that "everything has a sound" and that I was in need of being educated it wasn't the case. That was the strawman, or apparent assumption, on your part that I was addressing.

I hope that makes things more clear. I think we agree much more than you
think we do.

For instance:


Furthermore, in your hypercritical rush to judgement, you seem to have missed what I consider to be the most important point, which is that realism is already decidely lacking at the output terminals of the microphone.

So, its not any avoidable or unavoidable colorations in any subsequent processing that has lost the realism, the realism is already gone at what is arguably the first step in the process - the conversion of acoustical energy to an electrical signal by the microphone.

I'm not sure why you could possibly assume from anything that I wrote that I have "missed" that issue. Microphone colorations are among the most obvious issue in changing the sound! I've already mentioned microphone colorations, and pointed out I record and edit sound for a living. And that I've done direct live-to-recorded comparisons. How you'd think I "missed" the fact that microphones are deficient in being able to accurately capture live sound realistically is...well...beyond me.

(But, while they may not get all the way there...I have to also admit I can be amazed sometimes, with the right recordings, how surprisingly close they can get, GIVEN their limitations).





You still didn't address the weird claim that I was rebutting: which is that such audible gratuitous signal processing that may have been done can be countermanded by simply putting a tubed amplifier into the signal chain.

How did you miss my long, specific rely to precisely that issue?
I'll repeat: Nowhere did I claim that using a tube amp countermanded all the colorations and limitations in the recording/playback chain. In fact I specifically said more than once they DO NOT. I even gave specific examples of the types of things I find they do not address (dynamics being one of them).

I very carefully explained that I find there are some SPECIFIC differences that I find present in the vast majority of reproduced sound, some constants, that for me are indicative of the differences of reproduced sound vs live sound in general. Colorations accrue in different ways and to varying degrees in recordings, but to my ear there is ultimately a common "failing" or a common "signature" to reproduced sound, separating it from real life sounds. That being it seems very hard to reproduce the coherent, organic quality of voices and other acoustic sounds (like acoustic instruments). Whether the accumulation of colorations is large or small, there is still the sense to me of reproduced sound having, IN GENERAL, a "tighter" "squeezed" "harder" sound, that lacks the ease and organic quality of the real thing.

And the colorations of some tube amps seem to soften and fill out (and sometimes add a bit of spacial characteristic) the sound at the playback end
takes on a sound with more "ease" fullness and softness vs a solid state amp. I don't claim these are more accurate to the source; and all the colorations in the source will still be apparent. It's like a change of volume. Listen to a jazz trio recording at one volume level and you can hear everything, but it's nonetheless too low to impress you as realistic. Turn the sound up to more realistic sound levels and...the sound can become more realistic. You haven't lost all the colorations in the recording - they are still there. But you've made an overall change that nonetheless moves the sound in the direction of greater believability.

Likewise when I put certain tube amplification in my system. I'm not magically making all the colorations of the source disappear. But the tube amplification WILL CHANGE the overall sound of the music through the system, vs if I use a solid state amp. I only claim this overall subtle but detectable change in the sound of the system mimics to some degree certain characteristics I perceive in real life sounds. Like turning up the volume, for me the overall change in the sound moves toward some of the qualities that put me in a similar state of mind as when listening to "real" voices and instruments. As is the case for many hobbyists in general, the subtleties that might garner yawns from someone not that "into" the hobby
can be significant to the hobbyist. (And, as I've said, I don't expect everyone else in the audio hobby to like the sonic effects of tube amplification as I do).

Anyway, I just don't see that we actually disagree much. I just get the feeling you think I'm making claims on a scale that I'm not actually making.

Cheers,

I didn't read your reply to this comment arnyk, please do.

I believe that for many people, vacuum tubes are like an amulet or a good luck charm. Neither amulets nor good luck charms change things. They can't kill germs and they can't make broken audio components start working right.

However, in the posession of a true believer in the supernatural power of the charm or amulet, they create the perception of change and improvement.

IOW, the true believer in the supernatural power of tubes sees a glowing bottle in the signal chain, and they are comforted by it, their anxieties are reduced, and they can start enjoying the sound.

Those of us who work with effective tools for changing sound quality understand that it takes considerable intentionality, understanding, and careful adjustment to improve sound quality.

None of these are present in the true believers in the abilities of tubed equipment to supernaturally change sound quality. They just insert the tubed equipment into the signal chain, and all becomes well in their perceptions.

For them, tubes are like a security blanket.

... as well as the warm fuzzies I get from the visual design of some tube amps, seeing the tubes "glow" etc.
Yes, the glow of vacuum tubes is very nice and comforting in a primal way. Like a warm fire. I think this aesthetic is a principal part of their appeal. On the other hand, if your transistors glow, you are in big trouble. :)

I'm not magically making all the colorations of the source disappear. But the tube amplification WILL CHANGE the overall sound of the music through the system, vs if I use a solid state amp.


That's not true. The only tubed amplifiers that change the overall sound of music are those that are substandard, badly designed, or broken. While it is more difficult and costly, tubed amps can be made that are as sonically transparent as good SS amps. IOW, they have no audible sonic signature. They just make audio signals bigger.

If you're saying that you carefully select only tubed equipment that isthose arguably substandard, badly designed, or broken; well that's a choice you get to make.


I only claim this overall subtle but detectable change in the sound of the system mimics to some degree certain characteristics I perceive in real life sounds.


Now that you've admitted that these alleged differences exist only as perceptions, then you're essentially agreeing with the established fact that for most audiophiles, tubed equipment is more like an amulet or charm than something that actually reliably does something that is tangibly different.


Like turning up the volume, for me the overall change in the sound moves toward some of the qualities that put me in a similar state of mind as when listening to "real" voices and instruments.


Since you like virtually all audiopiles seem to have zero personal experience with truely level-matched, bias controlled listening tests, it may be exactly a level difference that is anchoring what you perceive.


As is the case for many hobbyists in general, the subtleties that might garner yawns from someone not that "into" the hobby
can be significant to the hobbyist. (And, as I've said, I don't expect everyone else in the audio hobby to like the sonic effects of tube amplification as I do).


Well yes, if you see audiophila as a religion, then of course there will be different denominations and sects within the world of audio that you perceive.


Anyway, I just don't see that we actually disagree much.


Please don't try to insult me that way! :-(


I just get the feeling you think I'm making claims on a scale that I'm not actually making.


It's quite clear that you are immersed in a tiny subsegment of audio that is way out of the mainstream.

His rants against Michael Fremer and the rest of the high-end reviewing community are entertaining though

Yes! LOL! His Secret Rules of Audio Reviewing (http://www.high-endaudio.com/reviewers.html#Rul) are to me a lot like The Peter Principle. It's a case of somebody noticing a pattern and writing it down. After reading it, one notices instances of the pattern all over the place. One can pick almost any audio review at random and likely see at least one of Salvatore's "rules" in action.

Actually, AFAIK, you cannot design a tube amp that will provide as flat a frequency response into a speaker as a transistor amp can. They can be very flat into resistors, but resistors are extremely hard to hear. When used into speakers, with varying impedance across the audible band, their inherently higher output impedance means they can't deliver as flat a frequency response as a transistor amp. Haven't seen anything to the contrary.

Tube amps tend to sound nice to some people. If you think tubes don't sound nice, or think that it is unacceptable to desire a nice sound if it is in any inaccurate, then that's okay, it seems to me. I tend to like the sound of tubes but use SS because I am more comfortable knowing I am accurate as I can be and tubes require more work, and good tube stuff with significant power tends to be expensive.

I do think that attempting to define the reasons that tubes seem to sound nice to some folks is highly complex. And I also think that the Stereophile/Bob Carver experiment in which Carver was able to adjust the transfer function of a transistor amp to be indistinguishable from the sound of a tube amp is instructive. It's not necessarily the devices, it's the implementation, at least when your are operating within reasonable limits of frequencyresponse and distortion.

arnyk,

I wrote: "I'm not magically making all the colorations of the source disappear. But the tube amplification WILL CHANGE the overall sound of the music through the system, vs if I use a solid state amp. "

That's not true. The only tubed amplifiers that change the overall sound of music are those that are substandard, badly designed, or broken. While it is more difficult and costly, tubed amps can be made that are as sonically transparent as good SS amps. IOW, they have no audible sonic signature. They just make audio signals bigger.


I have been very clear throughout the thread that I'm aware SOME tube amps will alter the sound whereas OTHER tube amps will not. Examples from my posts in this thread:

"When it comes to the sonic differences between tube and solid state (here talking about those designs that DO sound different)..."

And:

"I find certain tube amps, the ones that add certain characteristics to the sound often identified with "classic tube amp sound" (not the ones that can be made to sound like solid state) move in the direction of this "general fix."


And I've been careful to qualify I'm talking about "certain tube amps" (the ones that do change the sound) not ALL tube amps, over and over.

So I've already qualified over and over that when I talk of tube amps that sound different from SS, I'm talking about ONLY THOSE THAT SOUND DIFFERENT, not that adding ANY tube amp will change the sound.

I'd think that in any reasonable exchange were the other person cared about understanding my viewpoint, I'd have already provided ample qualifications showing that I've acknowledged that tube amps can be designed to sound like solid state, when I talk of "tube sound" vs solid state, I'm always referencing THE TUBE AMPS THAT DO SOUND DIFFERENT.

Only someone more bent on playing the game of "gotcha" would ignore that I have been quite clear on this in order to jump on a single instance where the qualification did not appear.




If you're saying that you carefully select only tubed equipment that isthose arguably substandard, badly designed, or broken; well that's a choice you get to make.

Clearly I'm in the presence of someone who doesn't like tube-amp coloration.
More power to you. Characterize as you wish. I'm not trying to convert you.
As it happens quite a number of people do enjoy the sound of certain tube amplifier design characteristics. Over many years in the hobby/sound business, I've noted that among electronics designers there is a range of attitudes to tube amplification. Some say they enjoy some aspects of the "classic" tube sound, within a spectrum of "I enjoy the tube amp sound" to "I like some aspects and can see why some people find it agreeable, but I personally desire more neutrality so they wouldn't be my choice" to "Why would anyone ever want to use a tube amp?"

Electronics designer Bob Carver, is quite well respected, has designed numerous well-known amplifiers, and has stated he very much likes some of the sonic qualities associated with a "classic" tube sound (often associated with softer sounding transients, a "fatter" sound, some describe a midrange "glow," thickening of transients etc). Which is one reason he has designed amplifiers with both voltage source and current source output terminals.

As well, quite a number of people I've met in the sound industry, e.g. recordists/mixers/engineers in both music and film have been admirers of tube amplification for music playback (if not outright "tube-heads" themselves when it came to their music systems).

Whatever you think of this, the point is that what you can only view as "broken" or "badly designed," other people with lots of experience in sound, and with good electronic credentials, have a more nuanced appreciation for why the sound of certain tube amplification can be desirable.



Now that you've admitted that these alleged differences exist only as perceptions, then you're essentially agreeing with the established fact that for most audiophiles, tubed equipment is more like an amulet or charm than something that actually reliably does something that is tangibly different.

Now you are making things up? Why?

Nowhere did I say the differences only exist as "perceptions" (whatever the heck you think that means). Some tube amps audibly alter the signal and I've explained how I perceive some of those alterations as often pleasing to me.

It seems you want to find some flooby-dust in there, but nothing I've written
supports the barbs you want to throw.

Do you wish to deny that there are tube amps that perceptibly alter the sound vs a solid state amp? If so, that would be novel, even among the most hardened engineers. But I'm all ears if you think that's the case.

But if you don't deny it, then why bother ragging on someone who might enjoy the sonic differences?

I use solid state amplification for all my work, but I enjoy tube amplification for kicking up my feet and enjoying my music system.


Since you like virtually all audiopiles seem to have zero personal experience with truely level-matched, bias controlled listening tests, it may be exactly a level difference that is anchoring what you perceive.

Again, gratuitous assumptions on your part. I've posted on this forum many times that I've been involved in blind/double-blind listening tests...yes, level matched with voltmeters etc. I've blind tested cables, ac cables (none made a difference), DACs/CD players, amps and even speakers. I even pointed out I work in the sound industry, and even wrote directly TO YOU that I am an advocate of blind testing. For instance, note the position I take in the "burn-in" thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16771048#post16771048
In fact, I was responsible for a well known video cable blind test - a sort of on-line version - I offered for many AVSmembers, in which the images of super expensive boutique video cables were compared to a range of ever cheaper cables. Not a perfect test, but it was fun and, in light of manufacturer claims, enlightening for some folks. The results indicated no one could tell the differences.





Well yes, if you see audiophila as a religion, then of course there will be different denominations and sects within the world of audio that you perceive.

I agree: that audiophile world, at least a large part of it, is often just plain wacky. And yes I've often noticed the similarities to denominations in religion. And many audiophiles, at least the "woo-woo" type, seem to rely on the same type of "my subjective experience can't be wrong" reasoning as is found in religion.


It's quite clear that you are immersed in a tiny subsegment of audio that is way out of the mainstream.

So is anyone on this forum who owns, for instance, a projection-based home theater. Or who would go worrying about the specific performance characteristics of scalers. Or who discuss with interest the gray-scale flatness of a display, or who might insist on the color accuracy of a display or who would care if too much DNR is being applied to Blu Ray titles, or who would even care to discuss, let alone know, that a "codec" is, or would...well add your own to the long list of things we discuss here on AVS that are quite clearly way outside the mainstream.

That's the nature of hobbyists. So whatever barb that was meant to be...I don't see it's point. (And it's particularly ironic on an electronic enthusiasts site in which we could probably find almost everyone here cares about certain things outside what the "mainstream" cares about).

And I'm not even sure what you'd mean by "immersed." I suspect it's code for more prejudice that, no matter what I write, you want to still peg me as being part of an irrational magic-believing crowd.

You may have some very interesting or enlightening things to add to this discussion. But if so it's hard to get to them through the attitude that comes through so strongly in your posts, insofar as it seems you are more interested in "showing the other guy is a naive (or a fool)" (if not outright assuming it) rather than engaging in a more fruitful form of conversation .

Thank you,

arnyk,

I wrote: "I'm not magically making all the colorations of the source disappear. But the tube amplification WILL CHANGE the overall sound of the music through the system, vs if I use a solid state amp. "

I have been very clear throughout the thread that I'm aware SOME tube amps will alter the sound whereas OTHER tube amps will not. Examples from my posts in this thread:

"When it comes to the sonic differences between tube and solid state (here talking about those designs that DO sound different)..."

And:

"I find certain tube amps, the ones that add certain characteristics to the sound often identified with "classic tube amp sound" (not the ones that can be made to sound like solid state) move in the direction of this "general fix."


And I've been careful to qualify I'm talking about "certain tube amps" (the ones that do change the sound) not ALL tube amps, over and over.

So I've already qualified over and over that when I talk of tube amps that sound different from SS, I'm talking about ONLY THOSE THAT SOUND DIFFERENT, not that adding ANY tube amp will change the sound.



You continue to miss the point. Even if you are picky-picky with tubed amps, the idea that *any* tubed amp is any sort of technical cure for the things that happen intentionally or by mistake in the audio production process is unbelievably optimistic.

If you had a child that was poisoned, would you walk into a drug store and randomly select a bottle of whatever and think it would be the antedote?

That's the game you're trying to play with tubed amps.


I'd think that in any reasonable exchange were the other person cared about understanding my viewpoint, I'd have already provided ample qualifications showing that I've acknowledged that tube amps can be designed to sound like solid state, when I talk of "tube sound" vs solid state, I'm always referencing THE TUBE AMPS THAT DO SOUND DIFFERENT.


Just becasue they are bad amplfiiers and cause audible changes doesn't make them good for the proposed purpose.

Here's are some news flashes for you:

(1) If a recording sounds bad because of some importune processing with an equalizer, then the most likely cure would be obtained using a carefully adjusted equalizer, not some crappy tube amp that has audible coloration.

(2) If a recording sounds bad because of some importune processing with an dynamics compressor the the most likely cure would be obtained using a carefully adjusted dynamics expande, not some crappy tube amp that has audible coloration.



Only someone more bent on playing the game of "gotcha" would ignore that I have been quite clear on this in order to jump on a single instance where the qualification did not appear.


Back at you. That was your opening slavo - playing gotcha with me when I was very clear that I was not talking about highly-processed recordings but rather worthy attempts at realistic sound.


Clearly I'm in the presence of someone who doesn't like tube-amp coloration.


Again you miss the point. You are in the presence of a person who doesn't like amplifiers (SS, tubed, or made out of magic crystals) with coloration, but has no problem using equalizers and dynamics processors that do.

Furthermore, most tubed amps that have coloration don't actually have that much coloration of their own. Connect most of them to resistive loads and they are respectably flat. Their coloration mostly comes due to their high output impedances, which means that their coloration is determined by the impedance curve of the speakers that they are attached to.

So, even your use of the phrase "tube-amp coloration" shows a lack of understanding, because most of the coloration is not specific to the particular tubed amp. Hook most tubed amps that end up producing colored sound when used with different speakers, and their frequency response changes due to the speaker's impedance curve.


More power to you. Characterize as you wish. I'm not trying to convert you.


This contrasts with my efforts to cut through a fog of misinformation and disinformation.


As it happens quite a number of people do enjoy the sound of certain tube amplifier design characteristics.


Their guns, their bullets, their toes. :-( The good news is that their foggy thinking seems to be dying with them.


Over many years in the hobby/sound business, I've noted that among electronics designers there is a range of attitudes to tube amplification. Some say they enjoy some aspects of the "classic" tube sound, within a spectrum of "I enjoy the tube amp sound" to "I like some aspects and can see why some people find it agreeable, but I personally desire more neutrality so they wouldn't be my choice" to "Why would anyone ever want to use a tube amp?"


No discernable facts have been presented in the above paragraph, just more foggy anecdotes.


Electronics designer Bob Carver, is quite well respected,


Actually, there are many insiders who opine that Carver has some serious dues to pay because of his, what many perceive to be, lame attempts to profit through litigiousness. For the last several years he has been attempting to raise money by suing small manufacturers of subwoofers based on the false claim that he invented the subwoofer. This is similar to Noel Lee's attempts to bully people into agreeing that he has the exclusive right to the use of the word "Monster" for everything from golf courses to automotive transmissions.







I've posted on this forum many times that I've been involved in blind/double-blind listening tests...yes, level matched with voltmeters etc. I've blind tested cables, ac cables (none made a difference), DACs/CD players, amps and even speakers. I even pointed out I work in the sound industry, and even wrote directly TO YOU that I am an advocate of blind testing. For instance, note the position I take in the "burn-in" thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16771048#post16771048


I see nothing that supports your claims that you have done any proper DBTs at all. I do see a lot of smoke.

*smacks head*

I didn't realise you were THAT Arny Krueger. Having seen the negative direction your interactions tend to go, I'm not going to waste my time thanks.

It's too bad you choose the style of interaction you do - not really discussing issues so much as "putting on trial" anyone who you even assume might not be thinking as you do. As desperately as you may try to look, I personally have made no outrageous technical claims (note the qualifications I have made of my view through the thread). Some tube amps color the sound. You know it. I tend to like the effects in some contexts. Shrug.

I spend quite a lot of time defending scientific rationalism myself. I am a supporter of blind tests and hence in general support of your ABX system. I was essentially on your side of the issue in your stereophile debate (finding the stereophile anti-blind test arguments rather mushy minded)...but...I enjoy the colorations of certain tube amplifiers in my system... so...into your "tubes are for boobs" loony bin I go.

I'm happy to talk of rational approaches to audio. But I'll save the conversation for folks whose style of interaction is not in the form of a personal crusade-like inquisition.

As I see it, Mr. Harkness is merely expressing a general preference for some tube based units and acknowledges full well issues of coloration. Further he has shared some of the reasons for this personal preference not in attempt to illustrate the global superiority of one approach over another but why, for him, using tubes has been a satisfying experience. There's no reason why his preferences need be taken to task.

IOW, the true believer in the supernatural power of tubes sees a glowing bottle in the signal chain, and they are comforted by it, their anxieties are reduced, and they can start enjoying the sound.



Your response alludes to your anxieties been comforted by the bottle.

Pompous Ass!

As I see it, Mr. Harkness is merely expressing a general preference for some tube based units and acknowledges full well issues of coloration. Further he has shared some of the reasons for this personal preference not in attempt to illustrate the global superiority of one approach over another but why, for him, using tubes has been a satisfying experience. There's no reason why his preferences need be taken to task.
if that is the direction he's going, then he stated it badly, the quote from him below gives a slightly different impression:


Even if under the right conditions reproduced sound could fool me it was the real thing, it's likely those type of conditions don't mirror the typical home set up. So some home-brew remedies (in my case certain tube amps) can help out, at least in my case, for getting desirable, more-natural-to-my-ears sound.

Unless he means that a tube amp of his choice subjectively improves the sound for him... but the above statement, for me at least, sounds like he's trying to improve the accuracy of the sound (thereby making it sound closer to "live") by adding specific tube amps.

Well, he does say more-natural-to-my-ears sound. I've read a number of Rich's writings both here and on USENET, aka Google Groups. In this specific case, he's talking about what floats his boat and is not looking to extrapolate it beyond his own preferences. I think there may be a misunderstanding going on simply because he's written at some length about his experiences and preferences. The way I see it, a whole lot of music today is terribly recorded and not especially geared to the home enthusiast. If some one wants to use tone controls, harmonic order enhancements, equalizers, hell even plugins for their computer, so what?

if that is the direction he's going, then he stated it badly, the quote from him below gives a slightly different impression:



Unless he means that a tube amp of his choice subjectively improves the sound for him... but the above statement, for me at least, sounds like he's trying to improve the accuracy of the sound (thereby making it sound closer to "live") by adding specific tube amps.

I don't see what is badly stated. I've been very careful and specific in my qualifications, not saying tube amps magically "fix" all issues with source colorations or reproduced sound in general.

Yes a tube amp can subjectively improve - that is bring characteristics I find desirable - in the sound of some systems to my ears. And yes it tends to be in the direction of adding certain qualities that for me mimic what I find in live sounds. As I've said in this thread, it's not that some tube amps that I like fix every sonic issue - of course they can't. Nor do they magically perform better in every respect than a solid state amp. In some respects I find a colored tube amp can REDUCE some aspects of the realism (sometimes rolling off too much top end, reducing dynamics, softening transients more than is realistic etc). However, as I have also said, I'm willing to accept trade offs to enjoy the areas in which some tube amplification can make music reproduction have similar pleasing characteristics that I notice in real life sound.

The "straight wire with gain" goal is admirable. The idea that all an amp should do is amplify the sound without distorting it or coloring it is obviously
a good goal, helping us toward the goal of reproducing the source content accurately, and toward the perhaps tougher goal of trying to eventually accurately reproduce the sound of live instruments and voices.

BUT...we don't live in a perfect world. Not all the parts in the chain are perfect at this point. There are various ways in which reproduced sound often falls short of the real thing. And some of us focus on A and B issues as being important failings, others more on C and D etc. I have already described the sense in which I find sound reproduction tends to fall short of
what I hear in live instruments..the things important to me. And as it happens some tube amps in various systems I've used color the sound in a way that, TO MY EARS, takes away some of that tight, electronic signature
from the overall presentation.

(The following is not a technical claim: it's only to add description about what I mean when I say I like certain tube amp coloration).

I used to review speakers and a number of speaker manufacturers who set up their speakers in my room remarked how good sounding their speakers sounded in my room. At one point I had John Otvos' superb Waveform Mach Solo speakers. John is very hard-nosed about designing-by-specs, has no time for silly audiophile claims, tube amps and the like. He demonstrated that you can get superb sound from his speakers from a cheap but competent Kenwood amp, although he liked Bryston.

I used two different Bryston amps to drive his speakers. The sound was absolutely superb. Nonetheless if there was a nit to pick it was a persistent "dryness" to the sound, or a bit of hardness speaker/listener position did not fix. It was that little thing that kept me feeling "this is close...but it's not real."

I put some locally built, low powered tube amps on the speakers. I perceived a loss of bass tightness and a bit of "incisiveness" with transients etc. But the sound took on a less "studio-dry" character, softer, vocal transients didn't pierce and jump out at me etc. I could simply "believe" vocals through the speaker that much more easily. Someone else may perhaps have thought the opposite.

FWIW, when Otvos came over to pick up the speakers I had him listen to his speakers driven by the tubes. He was as forthrightly skeptical as possible on sitting down to listen. But after listening his countenance changed somewhat and he remarked, yeah, it did sound pretty darned amazing.

Again...these are not technical claims so I am not trying to convince anyone else of some technical facts in the case. Nor am I asking anyone skeptical of the anecdote to accept it, or my conclusions, simply on my recounting the story. It's just trying to clarify what I mean when I say why I've enjoyed what I've perceived as the contribution of some tube amplification in the chain.

Now we know there can be "expectation effects" where you hear what you want to hear. Blind tests show that people will even perceive differences when hearing the same component, simply because they think something has been switched. So any statements purporting to make solid claims of sonic differences have to contend with those types of variables. This is why my position here is, for lack of better word, "casual" insofar as I'm not stridently making claims from my perception that I think others ought to accept. Nor am I trying to offer technical explanations.

But the issues of listener bias also have to be put in some context as well.
When someone talks of the sound of speakers, while in the strictest sense we might say we can not have the fullest confidence that someone heard a difference between speaker A and B if it wasn't done in blind testing, nonetheless it is not strictly controversial that speaker A can and often does sound different from speaker B. Speaker design compromises and room interactions ratify that speakers can often sound different from one another. So no particular need to jump down someones throat if they are expressing a preference in speakers.

When you get to things like cables, there are good reasons why one should expect most cables to transmit the typical electronic/musical signal without added coloration (provided they are properly implemented...e.g. shielded, used within their specs for length/signal attenuation etc). So if someone goes on about liking the sound of cable A over cable B, that by it's nature invites more careful scrutiny.

Then, it seems to me, that we get to areas like tube amplification and the "sound" of vinyl. Having watched many battles over these issues among audiophiles and between engineers, my impression is that the idea that LPs
can sound different - detour from accuracy or whatever - from digital media
is not terribly controversial. What tends to become more controversial are wild claims made on behalf of vinyl lovers about the "technical superiority" of vinyl over CD. From what I've seen the more "objectivist" engineer types
point out that the listener may have a preference for certain limitations and, to some people, "pleasant distortions" that can come from vinyl. Enjoy the sound if you want, just don't go making wild technical claims trying to justify your preference.

From what I've seen it's a similar issue with tube amps. Mr. Krueger aside, it seems generally acknowledged that tube amplification can alter the sound, and that some people enjoy the way these amps change the sound.
Just don't go making technical claims like "tubes are superior because..."

Which I would never do.

So, while I would not make the absolute claim that I have heard actual sonic differences with some tube amps vs solid state amps, without blind testing (I'd be resistant to make that claim even when comparing speakers if not done blind), at the same time from what I've seen it is not an inherently controversial stance that tube amplification can introduce audible deviations from solid state amps. Unlike the cables controversy, there does not seem to be a strict case on which to assume that I have not heard such differences. Just as the acknowledged distortions often found in vinyl vs CD mean one shouldn't assume someone is not hearing those differences.

So while I haven't proven anything, at the same time, where it is generally accepted that sonic differences can exist, I ought not to be "assumed guilty" (of not actually hearing differences) by parties over the Internet before any
tests have been done. This is an open case and some charity between parties is helpful, rather than witch-hunting.

As for the possibility I'm listening to a tube amp that audibly alters the sound from a solid state amp, here are the Stereophile measurements for the old Eico HF-81 tube amp I've been listening to.

http://www.stereophile.com/integratedamps/606eico/index4.html

Let's face it, those measurements border on the hilarious compared to a competently designed solid state amp. If someone's aim were to have an amp that amplified the signal as strictly/accurately as possible, this would not be your go-to amplifier. It does not appear to me unreasonable to say that amp may well produce, in some systems, audible departures from accuracy (correct me if I'm wrong). But darn I find that it's fun to put it in the system! It still produces a very enjoyable sonic presentation to my ears. And while it departs in some respects both in fidelity to the source and in fidelity to the sound of "real instruments," in certain other respects I find it strikes my ears as more convincing with some sounds than when the solid state amp is in the system.

Just clarifying my view. Sorry this post was not shorter!

I put some locally built, low powered tube amps on the speakers. I perceived a loss of bass tightness and a bit of "incisiveness" with transients etc. But the sound took on a less "studio-dry" character, softer, vocal transients didn't pierce and jump out at me etc. I could simply "believe" vocals through the speaker that much more easily. Someone else may perhaps have thought the opposite.

This is indeed the distinction between solid state and tubes.

I would also add better layering, really a consequence of the predominately low order / even order harmonic distortion signature of some tube amps. Higher order distortion components typical of solid state amplifiers are spectrally "dense" (even though they may be low in "absolute" amplitude), and as such are more likely to obscure the inner harmonic structure of musical instruments.

In my world tubes are an alternative to the mood. Mellow, romantic, emotional, sweet sounding music simply cries out for the tubes.

I also have 2 Crown K1’s in the audio only system (don’t let the moniker fool you) for a lively Saturday night GTG. However, when the party over and the wife kicks off her shoes and wants to snuggle, Rachmaninov Symphony No.2 at lower volume does the trick via tubes.

Oh no! A Barry Manilow fan!

lol....

As I see it, Mr. Harkness is merely expressing a general preference for some tube based units and acknowledges full well issues of coloration. Further he has shared some of the reasons for this personal preference not in attempt to illustrate the global superiority of one approach over another but why, for him, using tubes has been a satisfying experience. There's no reason why his preferences need be taken to task.

I see you've missed the point. Mr. Harkness has alleged that certain tubed power amplifier electronics are effective at reducing or removing signal processing such as compression and equalization. This is not a matter of personal preferences, but rather a claim of a generalized effect.

Now, if Mr. Harkness were to restate the situation as a simple matter of personal preferences, then there would be no problem.

On balance, it is not uncommon for people who are called to explain improbable techical claims to hide behind a fog of personal preferences.

This isn't about bashing preferences, this is about a dispassionate examamination of repeated claims of a technical effect that would be generally valuable, were it to actually be possible.

*smacks head*

I didn't realise you were THAT Arny Krueger.


*smacks head*

I was unaware that there are enough different Arny Kruegers who post about audio that there would be any confusion in the mind of a reasonably well-informed person.


Having seen the negative direction your interactions tend to go, I'm not going to waste my time thanks.


Here we see Mr. Harkness characterizing me again, as a person with poor character.


It's too bad you choose the style of interaction you do


Yes, being held accountable for your various improbable and unsubstiated claims might be very uncomfortable for you, Mr. Harkness.


- not really discussing issues so much as "putting on trial" anyone who you even assume might not be thinking as you do.


I would not characterize what you have done in the past several posts as being any serious kind of thinking, Mr. Harkness.



As desperately as you may try to look, I personally have made no outrageous technical claims (note the qualifications I have made of my view through the thread).


I wouldn't call your claims so much outragious, as foggy and unsupported when you are pressed for details.


ome tube amps color the sound. You know it. I tend to like the effects in some contexts. Shrug.


If that was all you said Mr. Harkness, you would now be a far happier camper.


I spend quite a lot of time defending scientific rationalism myself.


I examined some alleged examples of that which you provided, and I didn't see anything that was all that well-founded or effective.


I am a supporter of blind tests and hence in general support of your ABX system.


I examined some alleged examples of that which you provided, and I didn't see anything that was all that well-founded or effective.


I'm happy to talk of rational approaches to audio. But I'll save the conversation for folks whose style of interaction is not in the form of a personal crusade-like inquisition.

What you libel as an inquisition was simply a search for meaning and truth. Not exactly your strong suits, based on the examples that you provided.

Arny, I love ya although not in the biblical sense :D I thoroughly enjoy your writings, your knowledge, your insight, and just about everything else. Your contributions are substantial and that's understating it. Like I said, I've also read many of Rich's postings and I just didn't take it quite as literal as you did. In fact, I thought Rich bent over backwards in trying to express that his current integrated, an Eico, is rather quirky. Now, maybe some words or some phrases might not have been the best chosen as you point out. However Arny, I'm also looking at the whole of what he's written (probably in quite a short amount of time) and interpret it much more loosely than you. I see it as his current unit, due to its peculiarties, seems to make some recordings, maybe quite a few, more pleasureable to listen to. I don't think for one minute that he is of the opinion that the Eico is capable of removing processing. In fact, he finds the processing that the Eico does to act as a sort of panacea for some of the compression that's so prevalent in certain areas.

So, maybe it's a dispassionate examination upon your part. I'll take it as that. Rich I think just tried to find the words that qualify his preference and that ain't easy. I hope you're a drinking man, Arny. Someday if I ever find myself in your neck of the woods and time permits, I'd love to share a couple of pitchers with you.

In fact, he finds the processing that the Eico does to act as a sort of panacea for some of the compression that's so prevalent in certain areas.


That is what I think he is actually experiencing.

In essence, he's using it as an amulet or good luck charm. I have no problems with people who want to bring their religious beliefs into the listening room with them. I just think that its time to call things what they are.


I hope you're a drinking man, Arny. Someday if I ever find myself in your neck of the woods and time permits, I'd love to share a couple of pitchers with you.

Well, I've been known to help empty a pitcher or two...

I see you've missed the point. Mr. Harkness has alleged that certain tubed power amplifier electronics are effective at reducing or removing signal processing such as compression and equalization.

LOL. See Chu Gai? Even you just can't "get the point."

Probably because it's hard to get the point nestled within a stream of strawmen and mischaracterizations.

At least Chu Gai has done a good job representing rationality in audio matters, and he has clearly managed to read what I've written with the mind to understanding my position. Even if he doesn't agree. I can have a conversation with a person like that. But not with someone who is so agenda driven he only sees what he wants to see.